City-County Consolidation in North Carolina

In deciding upon the consolidated government’s form of administration, a charter commission must answer at least the following questions:

• Who will be the chief administrative official in the new government?
• How will that person be selected?
• What kind of tenure will that person have?
• What powers will that person have over personnel decisions in the new government?
• What role will the governing board have in personnel decisions?

In answering these questions, a charter commission is not subject to any legal constraints, but there has been a clear pattern of choices.

The council-manager or commission-manager system of administration dominates North Carolina local government.  It is in place in all 100 counties and in almost all cities and towns with more than 5000 residents (and in many smaller cities and towns as well).  Cities are centralized organizations, and the manager usually appoints all employees except the clerk and attorney, although in some cities the governing board holds the power to appoint the police, and sometimes fire, chief.  County government is much more dispersed.  Two department heads – the sheriff and the register of deeds – are elected by the voters; several others – notably the heads of social services, public health, and mental health (if a single-county agency) – are appointed by the boards that operate their departments; and the board of commissioners appoints the clerk, the attorney, the tax assessor, and the tax collector.  These officials usually have the authority to appoint the employees in their departments.  The county manager appoints all other department heads and employees, although it is open to the board of commissioners to require the manager to secure their approval before making any appointments.

Although a charter commission is not bound to adopt the manager plan, given this tradition it is not surprising that all but two of the eight consolidation efforts proposed that the new government use the manager system, although continuing the dispersed system of appointing (or electing) some county department heads.  The two exceptions were Charlotte-Mecklenburg I and Asheville-Buncombe.

The proposed charter in Charlotte-Mecklenburg I would have established a system more akin to the strong mayor systems found in many northern and midwestern cities.  The mayor was to be the chief executive officer of the government, serving full time and appointing (with council approval) the chief administrative officer.  (In addition, the mayor was to continue to preside at council meetings.)  The power to appoint other various officers and department heads was divided among the council, the mayor, and the chief administrative officer, as follows:

• The council appointed the clerk, tax collector, and tax supervisor.
• The council, with mayoral approval, appointed the police and fire chiefs.
• The mayor, with council approval, appointed the chief legal officer, finance director, coordinator of intergovernmental programs, and community relations director.
• The chief administrative officer, with mayoral approval, appointed all other department heads.

The proposed charter in Asheville-Buncombe provided for an elected Chief Executive, who was to combine the roles of a mayor, or county board chair, with those of a manager.  Far from being a departure from tradition, however, this was the system in place in Buncombe county at that time.  The Chief Executive was to appoint an administrator, who was to serve at the Chief Executive’s pleasure, and the head of each department whose appointment was not otherwise provided for; these appointments, however, were subject to the approval of the Board of Commissioners.  The Chief Executive was also given the power to appoint and remove all other consolidated government employees.  The charter also distinguished in one respect between staff departments and operating departments: the Chief Executive was entitled to remove, with Commissioners’ approval, the head of any staff department, while the administrator was entitled to remove, with both Chief Executive and Commissioners’ approval, the head of any operating department.  Otherwise, though, the diffused appointment system for county government established by state law was to remain in place.

Two of the proposed charters included minor variations from the usual manager system.  In Wilmington-New Hanover II the charter would have required a 2/3 vote from the governing board to either hire or fire the manager.  And Durham II brought forward to the consolidated government two manager-related provisions from the Durham city charter: one gave the manager somewhat greater job security during his or her first six months in office and the second directed governing board members to deal with government employees only through the manager.

In three of the four cities that have been involved in consolidation efforts – Asheville, Charlotte, and Wilmington – public safety employees are subject to a civil service system that creates legal protections for those employees not shared by other employees.  Most of the consolidation charters proposed for those communities have retained those civil service systems.